Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Hiroshima
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3142844" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>I understand the mindset completely. It's the same one that people now use to justify banning Muslims from entering the country, or even forbidding the construction of Muslim worship/community centers. It's fear, tapping into a (human-nature) overestimation of the prevalence of a threat from the existence of a few high-profile events. Humans are really bad at judging risk when there are a few really bad events. I get it; it truly is human nature.</p><p></p><p>Justice Scalia even gave an interview not too long before his death (a couple of years, maybe?) in which he said that he could easily see another <em>Korematsu</em>-style case winning the Court's approval today. Didn't approve of it, but acknowledged that fear produces such results.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I get that too. I would distinguish Japan from Vietnam in the fact that we <em>didn't</em> invade the mainland. If we had, I imagine a lot of non-combatants would have been shot. It's not just that the Japanese military wore uniforms, it's also that they had to leave their homes to fight. That's a critical distinction; if anything the internment camps were a lot more like the situation in Vietnam because we couldn't identify the individuals, so we dealt with them <em>en masse</em>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3142844, member: 13624"] I understand the mindset completely. It's the same one that people now use to justify banning Muslims from entering the country, or even forbidding the construction of Muslim worship/community centers. It's fear, tapping into a (human-nature) overestimation of the prevalence of a threat from the existence of a few high-profile events. Humans are really bad at judging risk when there are a few really bad events. I get it; it truly is human nature. Justice Scalia even gave an interview not too long before his death (a couple of years, maybe?) in which he said that he could easily see another [I]Korematsu[/I]-style case winning the Court's approval today. Didn't approve of it, but acknowledged that fear produces such results. I get that too. I would distinguish Japan from Vietnam in the fact that we [I]didn't[/I] invade the mainland. If we had, I imagine a lot of non-combatants would have been shot. It's not just that the Japanese military wore uniforms, it's also that they had to leave their homes to fight. That's a critical distinction; if anything the internment camps were a lot more like the situation in Vietnam because we couldn't identify the individuals, so we dealt with them [I]en masse[/I]. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Hiroshima
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom